Search Forums

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Here is my list of the top five most powerful military nations in the world, taking into account their armed forces units, active troops (including reserves), weapons capabilities (including nuclear weapons), training and military spending. If you disagree, than provide your own list or point to where you disagree. Let's start:

5. India- It has the second largest armed forces personnel in the world considering it is completely voluntary. India is surely becoming one of the most self sufficient military forces. It has the fourth largest air force and the fifth largest navy in the world. It has the opportunity for a great combat experience and training in various terrains when you take its geographic location into account. Overall, it has a good army, naval and air force and it also has around 100-140 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, with a no-first use and no use against non-nuclear state policy.

4. United Kingdom- The United Kingdom arguably has, the best equipped and well trained armed forces with the Royal Air Force being one of the most exceptional air service of any nation. Its Special Air Service (SAS) regiments is also very impressive. The U.K. also has a vast array of air crafts in its Royal Air Force. Its Royal Navy is the second largest navy unit in the world and consists of 90 commissioned ships with 12 nuclear powered submarines. It has around 200 nuclear weapons in its arsenal. In terms of military spending, the U.K. spends about $60 billion dollars and it's the fourth largest military spender. Overall, it has one of the best army, naval and air force of any nation.

3. China- With the largest military manpower and active military, China deserves to be on my number three list. It has around 2.2 million active troops (paramilitary and reserve included also) making it the largest of any nation. Its entire military is called the People's Liberation Army consisting of the ground forces (army), Navy, Air Force, Second Artillery (Strategic Missile Force) and People's Armed Police. It is slowly becoming more technologically advanced learning from the United State's military. Its Second Artillery Corps controls China's nuclear and conventional missiles. In total, China is said to have around 160-400 nuclear weapons. It ranks second in the world in military spending with around $70.2 billion. It has also recently updated its naval force and updated its tanks.

2. Russia- Russia has one of the most land based weapons of any nation in the world. Overall, they have a well equipped army and a very powerful military force. It has the fourth largest active military manpower with around 1.2 million troops and the third largest active reserve with 2.4 million troops. It has 15 naval destroyers (third most). Their special service, the Strategic Rocket Forces has the world's largest force in terms of Intercontinental Missile Ballistics (ICMB) with 561 missiles. It also has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world with about 5200 active and 8800 total warheads. It has the second largest fleet of ballistic missile submarines, only second to the United States. It is the fifth largest military spender at around $50 billion going to its military expenditure. Overall, it's one of the most powerful militaries in the world.

1. United States- It is the most technologically advanced military and overall it has the most powerful army, naval (including marine corps) and air force units in the world. It has about 1.3 million active military personnel ranking second in the world and with a military reserve of 1.4 million. It also has 450,000 paramilitary units. In total, it has 2.4 million troops. It ranks first in military spending in the world with $583 billion going into its military. It has some of the most advanced military vehicles, artillery and aircraft in the world. The United States' Navy is the largest in the world and the United States' Air Force (or USAF) also happens to be the largest in the world. It has some of the most stealthiest aircrafts including the B-2 Spirit and F-22 Raptor Aircraft Fighter. It is estimated that it has around 18,269 aircraft. The United States also has the second largest nuclear weapons arsenal in the world with 4075 active nuclear warheads and 5535 total warheads. It is truly the most most powerful military in the world.

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

I would put China over Russia. Where Russia's military is decaying, China's military is making some major improvements and advances. China's Army is larger than Russia's and China's Navy is much more powerful than Russia if one counts combat readiness rather than number of rusting hulls.

It is I think also worth noting that Chinese and US soldiers and Marines fought vicious battles against each other killing more than 50,000 US servicemen and an estimated 250,000 Chinese during the Korean war. No peace treaty was ever signed to officially end that war.

In a straight conventional ground war, the US would prevail at this time only due to its air forces. However, China no doubt is working to change that.

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Originally Posted by Spartacus

In a straight conventional ground war, the US would prevail at this time only due to its air forces. However, China no doubt is working to change that.

This is completely false. The technological advantage of the US Army renders any possible manpower advantage irrelevant. Their tanks - Type 96, 98, and 99 are copies of the Soviet T72, a tank which has been proven ineffective in battle. Their artillery is similarly incomparable to anything the US has.

In a truly conventional, ground-based war, even with air power taken out of the equation, the US pwns the world.

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Yes but what good is an army if it runs you into debt? I think the whole of theweat should combine their funds, say all europe and the Americas combine to mount one army, there would be less costs. There is no need to bicker within, as nobody will be able to attck each other having the same army, so they can relax towards each other at least. Then they will have an army so powerful that nobody would defy them, leading to less wars and more peacekeeping that is adequately funded, then the other richer nations will help with the burden of keepig it going, leading to better force behind the force, pushing it forward into the mealstrom of war. If they were to combine into one military, woudl they also combine into one society? That would be beneficial, but let's keep it militant for now, they would be able to sweep aside any opposition, and, being made up of peaceful nations funding it, would only be interested in long term peace. Then they would put out the fire of war ravaging the world in Africa at least, with such a force against them, they will give it up, surely? If they were to take a side, a just side, and rule them victorious, or else, there would be no more war.

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Yes but what good is an army if it runs you into debt? I think the whole of theweat should combine their funds, say all europe and the Americas combine to mount one army, there would be less costs. There is no need to bicker within, as nobody will be able to attck each other having the same army, so they can relax towards each other at least. Then they will have an army so powerful that nobody would defy them, leading to less wars and more peacekeeping that is adequately funded, then the other richer nations will help with the burden of keepig it going, leading to better force behind the force, pushing it forward into the mealstrom of war. If they were to combine into one military, woudl they also combine into one society? That would be beneficial, but let's keep it militant for now, they would be able to sweep aside any opposition, and, being made up of peaceful nations funding it, would only be interested in long term peace. Then they would put out the fire of war ravaging the world in Africa at least, with such a force against them, they will give it up, surely? If they were to take a side, a just side, and rule them victorious, or else, there would be no more war.

All I can say is no.

What you are suggesting would only lead to more chaos, and more death, because no one would willingly submit to it.

As for your point that "such a massive force would cause all smaller forces to surrender":

The Afghan militias fought off the massive Russian army for about 10 years. The NVA and VC forces fought off a highly mobile force, that was even more technological advanced. They pushed to western forces out at that, granted the French were seriously on the downfall, it still does not negate the fact that the Vietnamese fought back, despite overwhelming odds.

The Germans during the Second World War fought the Russians, the US, and the British all at the same time...

And for the lack of war resources they had, the lack of man power, and the fact that they were running out of trained men to fight, well that did not stop them from fighting till damn near the end.

The Japanese in the Second World War. They lost many trained pilots, and even huge amounts of armies and naval fleets that were simply sealed off from the rest of the Pacific. Their Zero plane was outmatched, both with the lack of experienced pilots, and in the tech field.

Yet, they still fought, and hard.

Despite the fact that the Germans and the Japs could not fight a prolonged war, they fought hard, and it took a lot to wrestle them to the ground.

I really think you need to go back in history and rethink some things. No matter what, smaller force, who were outnumbered have usually fought back, and fought back fairly well.

Granted, numbers, and tech will help you out a great deal. It wont take you all the way.

But at the end of the day it comes down to one simple thing sometimes:

Who is willing to hold out longer?

Could a massive military force conquer the Earth? Sure could. But you know what, the Romans were unable to keep peace forever. The British could not, Alexander The Great could not. All of these empires fell, and what you are suggesting, despite what you may say in your defense, is clearly an empire.

You are suggesting that a great coalition basically take over the world and impose peace.

I think if you had a better understanding of military history, history in general, or even studied insurgency warfare, you would see that the little guy is usually tenacious as hell; and rarely willing to surrender to a bigger force.

People are not willing to roll over simply because of the threat of violence, or greater numbers. If they were, the ideals of freedom, equality, etc, would have died long ago.

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Originally Posted by Spartacus

I would put China over Russia. Where Russia's military is decaying, China's military is making some major improvements and advances. China's Army is larger than Russia's and China's Navy is much more powerful than Russia if one counts combat readiness rather than number of rusting hulls.

Where's your proof that Russia's military is decaying? They are spending more and more of billions of dollars on their military and it would only make sense that the more they spend, the better it will become. I'm not arguing that China may very well be number two on the list even though I don't necessarily agree with that personally as of now, but I wouldn't say Russia's military is decaying. Russia's military is not something a nation should put to the test and level with. Despite China having the edge in combat readiness in terms of its Navy, I would say Russia still has an overall powerful navy. Not to mention that China's air force does not even remotely match Russia's air force. However, China is improving more and more and that's one aspect I can't disagree with.

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Originally Posted by KingOfTheEast

Where's your proof that Russia's military is decaying? They are spending more and more of billions of dollars on their military and it would only make sense that the more they spend, the better it will become. I'm not arguing that China may very well be number two on the list even though I don't necessarily agree with that personally as of now, but I wouldn't say Russia's military is decaying. Russia's military is not something a nation should put to the test and level with. Despite China having the edge in combat readiness in terms of its Navy, I would say Russia still has an overall powerful navy. Not to mention that China's air force does not even remotely match Russia's air force. However, China is improving more and more and that's one aspect I can't disagree with.

Many people do think that just because the Soviet Union fell that the Russian armed forces are a joke, and that couldn't be more wrong. Vladamir Putin has been pouring lots of money and resources into rebuilding the armed forces, and by all accounts, he did a pretty good job.

But the fact remains that the Russian armed forces are a shadow of their old self.

T-72's still make up a majority of their tank force, and the conflicts in Iraq have proven that the American Abrams and the British Challenger are both vastly superior to the Russian tank. Granted, the old Soviets had a policy of exporting a "monkey model" or simplified version of their tanks, but that cannot make up for the enormity of the gap between the Russian mbts and the NATO mbts.

" Their tanks - Type 96, 98, and 99 are copies of the Soviet T72, a tank which has been proven ineffective in battle. Their artillery is similarly incomparable to anything the US has. "

They should both try to emulate Israel, and instead of having hordes of poorly trained and equipped conscripts, they should have a smaller, more manageable force, filled with some of the best trained, best equipped, and most motivated soldiers in the world.

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

The PLA has a new rifle and round that is superior to anything else fielded in the world.

In modern history, usually the Army with the best rifle, also wins on the battlefield as smallarms development is indicative of other developments as well.

The PLA 5.8 has superior ballistics and terminal knockdown power than the underpowered puny NATO 5.56.

As for Russia, many people erroneously assume that all the amred forces of the USSR are now in th ehands of Russia. This is not the case at all. The Ukraine, Georgia, etc. all got parts of the SOviet Military machine.

Additionally as for the effectiveness of Russia's military. Please indicate one military victory for the Russian armed forces since WWII.

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

In modern history, usually the Army with the best rifle, also wins on the battlefield as smallarms development is indicative of other developments as well.

Would you provide some examples of this please?

As a former military man yourself, I find it hard to believe that you believe this. The Germans in WWII had superior small arms than the Allies (can you say MG-42 GOOD GOD), yet they lost. The Koreans had AK-47s, and we were using M-14s, and they lost. Hell, a lot of people (myself included) think the AK a better weapon than the M-16. It's not as cheap to shoot, and not as accurate for anything more than a single shot at a time, but it has the stopping power of a .308 (well, to be fair, it is a .308) and is damn near indestructible. Early use of the M-16 showed it to be a finekey, prone to jam if it got even a little dirt on it, or a dirty look. Those problems were taken care of in the long run, to be sure, but it is still considered an inferior weapon to its Soviet (and Chinese knock-off) counterparts. Even the M-4, the M-16 upgrade, can't really even be compared to it because it fills in the gap between sub-machine gun and assault rifle; it doesn't have the range of a standard assault rifle, nor the increased mobility of a sub-machine gun (or a bull-pup design assault rifle).

Air power wins wars (big conventional wars, anyway). Whoever controls the skies, controls the battlefield. And the intelligence. And the logistics. And the ability to rapidly move and deploy. And the suppression of the enemy's intelligence, logistics, and ability to rapidly move and deploy.

And the US Air Force is the biggest and best in the business.

The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo

Would you provide some examples of this please?

As a former military man yourself, I find it hard to believe that you believe this. The Germans in WWII had superior small arms than the Allies (can you say MG-42 GOOD GOD), yet they lost. The Koreans had AK-47s, and we were using M-14s, and they lost. Hell, a lot of people (myself included) think the AK a better weapon than the M-16. It's not as cheap to shoot, and not as accurate for anything more than a single shot at a time, but it has the stopping power of a .308 (well, to be fair, it is a .308) and is damn near indestructible. .

In WWII - The Germans used the K-98 as the basic infantry weapon. Which is great fro killing people at 600--800 yeards if they stand still and you can see that far with iron sights-- but the recoil is a bitch, and the action was a bit delicate. German snipers and infantry much preferred the Soviet Moison Nagant -- the standard weapon of the Russians. And the US -- well the M-1 was according to Patton, "the finest battle implement ever devised". Far superior to the K-98. I won't even mention the crap Japanese rifles and small arms. And FYI -- the MG-42's rate of fire was pretty high. It was a bitch to keep that thing fed. That is why in later versions and when the US copied it for the M-60 changes were made to slow down its rate of fire.

In Korea -- the Chinese did not use AKs. They used Moison Nagants, and a lot of sub guns like the PPSH etc. AK-47s were not used in combat in large numbers against US forces until late in the Viet Nam War. For the US forces in Korea it was all the WWII weapons -- The M-1 rifel and M1 carbine...and later the M-2 carbine, a selective fire version of the M-1. The M-14 was not adopted until After the Korean War and no more than 250,000 were ever made. It was heavy, expensive and fired a huge round. Only the Marines used them in any numbers during Viet Nam. The Army was issuing M-16s as early as 1965 to its main force units arriving there.

The AK is a great weapon for jungle and urban warfare and/or to arm a peasant army with little training. But beyond 50 meters it is just crap. Ever shoot one? The 7.62 x 39 round has a lot of knock down but is rather heavy. standard combat load for the Ak 47 is only about 120 rounds. In Viet Nam and in subsequent combat US troops often carried as many as 600 rounds for their rifles. (I personally carried 900+ rounds loaded 27 rounds per 30-round mags). 600 rounds of 7.62 x 39 would just weigh down a man incredibly. Now the M-16 had its problems (due to wrong powder being used and lack of a chrome bore and cleaning equipment being issued at first). It lacks knockdown power. But it still kills. The Soviets were so impressed with what it did to the Vietnamese that they essentially copied its 5.56 round in their own 5.45 round which debuted in Afghanistan in the AK-74.

For accuracy, ergonomics, etc. the M-16 family, despite its faults is the most successful rifle of the last 50 years. Period. But it does require some intense training and regular daily intense maintenance. Sometimes 3-4 times a day in the desert. I used panty hose to cover my weapon and still cleaned it 3 times a day whether I fired it or not. But I could hit a head-and shoulders target out to 400 meters with iron sites. A man sized target out to 500 meters. I could also do a head shot out to 150 meters in less than three seconds. In Iraq, the Marines killed so many insurgent with head shots that there were accusatins of "executing prisoners." Investigations just showed the Marines were marksmen to be feared. When you use the 5.56 the only way to knock someone down is with a head shot or with a shot to the pelvis. Anything else might kill the guy -- but he is going to live long enough to do you harm before he dies.

There are versions of Stoner's operating system today which eliminate its direct gas operation and replace with a gas impingement system like the AK series. It is also available with a better round -- the 6.5 and 6.8 are today in use with Special Forces. The bullet has twice the weight of the original 5.56 and is lethal out to 600 meters vs. the 5.56's 300 meters.
OK and now everyone knows I am a small arms geek.

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Holy God good info on the small arms stuff. I'll admit, it's not my forte, and I had some misconceptions it seems.

But I do know air power.

Germany didn't lose because of the K-98, they lost because of Hitler. Also, we were able to bring their war industry almost to a halt with the introduction of the P-51, as it had the legs to escort the heavy bombers far behind the lines. Japan didn't have the economy nor resources to properly fight a war of the scale they got themselves into, and they favored some seriously flawed designs which were, in part, fueled by their material-poor economy, e.g. The Zero - a fast, nimble fighter that was made out of tissue paper and dreams. Their goal with the Zero was to have a fast plane capable of out-maneuvering all other planes with almost no thought to survivability or protection for the pilot; their very culture put their pilots into "kamakazi mode" before they even stepped into the cockpit. As a result, the Zero was super-cheap, easily mass-produced, and afforded practically no protection whatsoever to the poor sap behind the stick. Our planes, on the other hand, you had to literally chop up with bullets before they'd go down.

Your example of the Serbs doesn't really fit with my claim. I said that Air power wins wars (big conventional wars, anyway). That war wasn't big or conventional. I happen to know a bit about the F-117 incident (how it happened, contributing factors), and I can say with full certainty that they got lucky. But that doesn't change the fact that we were fighting that engagement with a limited-war mindset, and they having shot down one stealthy aircraft didn't exactly turn the tide, if you know what I'm saying.

"Without grunts, one can not win a war. Grunts do better with air power, but they can win without it -- eg: the Serbs"

I have to revise your statement with one of my own:

Without grunts, one can not hold nor occupy land. Grunts do a LOT better with air support, and if they other team has it, our team can not win without it.

Serbia has almost nothing to do with it.

The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Serbia is a perfect example of how airpower alone -- in current conditions where the more powerful force must be ever-mindful of "collateral damage" -- can not change things on the ground.

Despite BDAs and camera footage showing what the US Navy and Airforce thought were tanks and artillery batteries being destroyed in Kosovo: Serbia's armor and artillery was pretty much untouched by the best efforts of the only hyperpower's air forces. Thanks to some cheap wood, canvas, paint and some cans of sand heated with burning diesel fuel. $100,000 smart bomb vs. $25 decoy. Decoy wins.

Had attack helicopters been allowed in -- or A-10s guided by combat air controllers on the ground -- it would have been very different. But then that would have required the Army and having eyes on target and being on the ground. The clean sterile, no-friendly-casualty war fought from 15,000 feet with $100,000 "smart bombs" is a fantasy.

It has been argued that air forces bring a new dimension to warfighting strategy.

I whole-heartedly disagree. Air forces today do nothing on the ground that cavalry and artillery have not been doing for thousands of years: Disrupting lines of communications, conducting raids, scouting, screening and bringing immense firepower (or catapault power) to bear against hard targets.

Nothing new has been added to warfighting strategy considerations since the catapault.

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Originally Posted by Dr Gonzo

Germany didn't lose because of the K-98, they lost because of Hitler. .

Yes, but whether it was Hitler, Tojo, the Arabs against the Israelis, or the Americans against the British: Usually the side with the best small arms wins. Not because of the small arms necessarily, but because the better small arms tend to be an indication of creativity and industriousness.

"I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born" -- Ronald Reagan

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Serbia is a perfect example of how airpower alone -- in current conditions where the more powerful force must be ever-mindful of "collateral damage" -- can not change things on the ground.

Despite BDAs and camera footage showing what the US Navy and Airforce thought were tanks and artillery batteries being destroyed in Kosovo: Serbia's armor and artillery was pretty much untouched by the best efforts of the only hyperpower's air forces. Thanks to some cheap wood, canvas, paint and some cans of sand heated with burning diesel fuel. $100,000 smart bomb vs. $25 decoy. Decoy wins.

Had attack helicopters been allowed in -- or A-10s guided by combat air controllers on the ground -- it would have been very different. But then that would have required the Army and having eyes on target and being on the ground. The clean sterile, no-friendly-casualty war fought from 15,000 feet with $100,000 "smart bombs" is a fantasy.

It has been argued that air forces bring a new dimension to warfighting strategy.

I whole-heartedly disagree. Air forces today do nothing on the ground that cavalry and artillery have not been doing for thousands of years: Disrupting lines of communications, conducting raids, scouting, screening and bringing immense firepower (or catapault power) to bear against hard targets.

Again, like I said... they were fighting with a LIMITED WAR mentality. You even said it yourself - had A-10s and attack choppers been allowed to do their thing, it would have gone very differently. So, you're kind of making my point for me.

Serbia also had what you could consider to be no air force at all. 40 some-odd relics from the early 60s and 70s, all of which were sub-sonic, made up their "fighter" compliment... and I quoted that word because none had an air-to-air capability. They were all fighter/bomber variants. The other 360 or so aircraft were transports and helos.

Had Serbia had a modern air force, even in those same numbers, we would have had a tougher time dealing with them. The first missions into the region would have been airfield strikes with constant CAPs, because our military recognizes air power as a force multiplier. I don't know when you got out, but this has been the end-all-beat-all buzz word of the last ten years, not to mention the whole "Joint Force" doctrine, but that deserves it's own thread in my opinion.

I know, I know... "Two Generals, sipping coffee in Paris. One turns to the other and says 'By the way, who won the air war?'" That was before the JDAM. And stealth technology. And smart bombs. And A-10s. And HARMs. And ISR. And cluster munitions. And nuclear-powered aircraft carriers with a wing of 80+ fighter/bombers with precision guided munitions.

Air power is superior for intelligence gathering. Period. End of story. Over-the-horizon isn't as much of an issue when the horizon is 300 miles away, not 13. And intelligence wins wars.

One B-1 full of JDAMs has more firepower, farther reach, quicker reaction and maneuverability time, and is far more accurate than 10 artillery units, while only putting 4 people into harms way instead of an entire battalion or regiment. And the crew gets to eat in a chow hall when they're done killing people, not an MRE warmed up on the hood of an HMMWV.

Originally Posted by Spart

Nothing new has been added to warfighting strategy considerations since the catapault.

So, the advent of firearms didn't negate the use of armor? The advent of the machine gun didn't lead to trench warfare? Armored Cav didn't make trench warfare obsolete? Those are all warfighting strategies (wearing no armor, fighting in trenches, using internal-combustion vehicles) that all came after the catapult. Hell, even some of those strategies have changed, e.g. we're using armor again, thanks to synthetic fibers, and tanks used to support infantry, and now infantry supports tanks. That right there is a major strategic shift in the warfighter's mentality.

What about electronic surveillance? What about NVGs and thermals? What about radios? Airplanes are not simply "artillery in the sky". They are so much more. And with their advent, war strategy changed completely.

I get what you're trying to say, that basic artillery employment hasn't changed since the time of the catapult, that guns are used just like bows, that warships nowadays basically fight they way they did back in the day, that air power strategies are basically a combination of existing nautical and artillery strategies... but those strategies have wildly changed, with different emphasis and employment. Maneuver Warfare wasn't really possible before gun powder, internal combustion, and radios, and it's pretty much the "law of the land" when considering modern land warfare.

I don't know if I can buy that claim. Maybe if you reworded it a bit? The way you leave it, it's just so open to interpretation.

Last edited by Dr Gonzo; April 24th, 2009 at 08:13 PM.

The Signature Religion is the one true religion. I know this is true, because it says so right here in this signature.

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Not a bad list, and I would strongly agree with Israel as an 'honorable mention'. I'd say it is arguably the strongest in the world proportionally, compared to its size/population. Especially considering it has survived surrounded by much larger neighbors who hate it passionately.

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

But this isn't proportionally, it is world wide in terms of what country could beat what country in war. With the US leading in tech, navy, airforce, and finishing close(2nd-3rd) in many, if not all other fields it rightfully gets #1.

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Originally Posted by superiorarsena

But this isn't proportionally, it is world wide in terms of what country could beat what country in war. With the US leading in tech, navy, airforce, and finishing close(2nd-3rd) in many, if not all other fields it rightfully gets #1.

Well yeah, I fully agree with the US as #1 in military strength, the annual spending towards it alone basically proves that. Proportionally is a different way of measuring it, though.

Re: The Strongest Military Powers In The World

Originally Posted by SPART

There are versions of Stoner's operating system today which eliminate its direct gas operation and replace with a gas impingement system like the AK series. It is also available with a better round -- the 6.5 and 6.8 are today in use with Special Forces. The bullet has twice the weight of the original 5.56 and is lethal out to 600 meters vs. the 5.56's 300 meters.

Twice the wight? what is the drop on it?
As I understand it at 500 yards the .308 has a 108 inch drop, while the .223(5.56) has a drop of half that (around 53 ish).

You may be able to knock a target down, IF you can hit it, but compensating for a big drop is going to lower that effectiveness.

After watching the video (apparently from years ago).. i think I hate that Chinese gun. It's ugly, and I don't know how I would attach all my fun gadgets my AR-15 has. Also, it doesn't appear as though it would be user friendly in reloading.

With all the debate about guns, my only concern is hitting the target. You have to be able to hit it before you can think of killing it.

I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.